crown.

to conduct the government with advantage, either to the country or the It is needless to say that every such resignation must be assumed to be a necessary step; and that no ministry can, without folly or guilt, resign without necessity the trust which they have undertaken, more particularly on a sudden notice, and in a critical condition of public affairs. The demise of the Melbourne Cabinet became in this manner necessary, and in this manner took place; when, of course, it lay with her Majesty to entrust the formation of a new cabinet to such person as she might think deserving of the confidence due to a first minister. For whom did she send-for whom was she advised to send by Lord Melbourne himself? For the Duke of Wellington, the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. By that illustrious person she was advised to send for Sir Robert Peel, the leader of the same party in the House of Commons; and the advice so given was accepted. Sir Robert Peel was sent for and intrusted with the task; a task at all times important, and at the present time peculiarly arduous and responsible. If Sir Robert Peel was to accept the trust devolved upon him, it was his duty, not to his own personal feelings, but to the country which he was to govern, to the CROWN which he was to serve, to make his ministry as powerful and efficient as the constitution would permit him. We have seen enough of the mischiefs and miseries of weakness and vacillation, to teach us that what the country wanted was a stable and steady government; and no statesman was bound or entitled (for in this matter right and obligation go together) to omit any legitimate precaution to ascertain and to demonstrate that he was possessed of as much of the royal confidence, and secure of as much of the royal support, as would enable him, without doubt or difficulty on that head, to make a trial of his principles and plans.

Let us see, then, what arrangements, beyond those of the Cabinet itself, a minister in Sir Robert Peel's situation would naturally contemplate. At first sight, it seems to have occurred to all, that, in reference to the ladies of the household, every thing would adjust itself as a matter of course,

and nothing but sad experience could have convinced us that a difficulty was possible, such as that which has arisen. On the one hand, no man who could ever be supposed worthy of the situation of minister, would trouble his head about mere maids of honour, or think of interfering as to mere personal friends. On the other hand, no one of honourable feelings, or with a sense of common decency, could dream that such persons as Lady Normanby or the Duchess of Sutherland would either be expected to remain, or would submit to do so, if they were requested. There never was an instance in which the questions that could arise as to the household were likely a priori to create so little dispute. One part of the case was so clear, and the other so trivial, that nothing but the most perverse ingenuity, or the most desperate intrigue, could excite the slightest difference of opinion on the subject.

Take the instance of Lady Normanby as a test of the principle: will any human being on the outer side of a lunatic asylum pretend to entertain a doubt that Sir Robert Peel's expectation of her removal was not only reasonable and just, but that a permission for her to remain under his administration would have been an act either of the merest folly or the basest meanness? The wife of the ex-Colonial Secretary, whose Jamaica scheme had been the occasion of the change!—the wife of the ex-ex-Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whose government had been the object of an alleged attack but a fortnight before, and was still the subject of a searching scrutiny !—the wife of a rival aspirant to the very office of prime minister !—this lady to seek or to consent to remain a real or suspected spy on the proceedings of a hostile administration, was scarcely credible; but if such want of delicacy, such utter degradation on her part, or rather, let us say in justice to her, on the part of her husband, was a possible thing, it was an additional reason why it should not be suffered to take place. Almost the same thing may be said of the sisters of Lord Morpeth. The very idea of such ladies continuing about court, not as friends or visitors, but as official persons, in privileged, and indeed compulsory attendance on the Queen's person, was utterly absurd, and essen

tially incompatible with the formation of a ministry formed on the very displacement of the political party to whom those ladies were so closely allied, and by whom, be it observed, they had been appointed to their situations. Can any man say that Sir Robert Peel was not entitled to expect that those ladies would cease to hold office if he was to be prime minister? He was entitled to expect it as a test of confidence; he was entitled to demand it as a source of strength. It was not, perhaps, necessary that the Queen should confide at all in Sir Robert Peel. It was not, perhaps, necessary that she should call in the aid of the Conservative party. But it was impossible, if she had not been badly and basely advised, that she should confide in him to the effect of making him her minister, without confiding in him to the full extent which that character reasonably required; it was impossible that she should continue to appeal to the Conservative party to form a government, unless she was resolved to give them fair play against their self-displaced opponents. The continuance of such appointments in the household was a manifest contradiction to the course which her Majesty was, by Lord Melbourne's advice, pursuing at the time. If Ladies Normanby, Sutherland, and Burlington, were, at all hazards, to remain about court, no new minister ought to have been selected, to whom their continuance would be reasonably objectionable. If a person of Sir Robert Peel's party, and in his position, was to be chosen as minister, the removal of those ladies was implied as a sine qua

non.

The proposition that we have now been maintaining is so self-evident, that any direct contradiction to it has scarcely been hazarded by the ministerial party in the late discussion. The proposition must be considered on abstract principles, and as involving a general rule. It cannot be decided in one way for a Whig administration, and in another for a Tory one. It cannot be one thing at one time, and another thing at another. It involves two questions,-one of fact, and another of principle, both of them, luckily, of very easy decision. 1st, Is it possible, in point of fact, that the character of the female officials in attendance on the person of a Queen

regnant, may become a source of weakness and embarrassment to the administration intrusted with the government of the country? 2d, If so, is a minister entitled to expect, and entitled to decline office if he does not receive, that degree of control over the household which will remove the sources of weakness and embarrassment thence arising? We believe there is no one so blind as not to see that the first of these questions must be answered in the affirmative; and if this be done, the same must follow by necessary inference as to the second. We believe we might go further, and say that every minister is responsible for the whole officers that he either appoints or allows to remain about the sovereign's court. We cannot entertain a doubt that the minister who would either place or permit improper persons to remain about the Queen-regnant, especially when that Queen is young and inexperienced, would be directly responsible for his conduct. It is not necessary to argue the case here on that footing; but the supposition brings out the principle, and the existence of a responsibility, in any such cases, implies a right of control in all.

Let it not be supposed that we are in the slightest degree disputing the power of the Queen to nominate her ministers. So far from doing so, we admit it in its fullest extent, and place our argument on that very basis. It is perfectly in the Sovereign's power to give or withhold her confidence as she pleases. She may appoint to office whatever minister she prefers, and may, if so advised, make the appointment depend on the voices or views of her female attendants, or on any other criterion that is most agreeable to her. It lies, indeed, with the people to say whether they will ratify the choice; and between the Sovereign's prerogative to appoint on the one hand, and the subject's privilege to disapprove on the other, the question will adjust itself in the most advantageous and satisfactory manner. But what we contend for is this principle, that the Sovereign, if she does determine to appoint an individual as minister, must give him all the powers which are necessary for his acting without embarrassment or disadvantage, in so far as her court is concerned. If she is to repose confidence, she must not do it by halves, but must be prepared to

follow it out to the full and legitimate extent to which, in reason and fairness, it can be urged. If that confidence is not to be fully given, it ought not be offered at all.

The truth of this principle is, indeed, so manifest to common sense, that the Whig party have found it wholly impossible to confine their defence to such untenable ground as its direct and downright denial. They have tried to rouse the country to take their part upon a totally different footingon the allegation that Sir Robert Peel insisted that the whole ladies of the household should be removed. It is true that this defence of the ministerial advice has been, in appearance, relinquished by the ministerial leaders, and admitted to rest on an erroneous impression; but it is not yet abandoned by the main body of their underlings or followers, and it be comes necessary for us, therefore, not to accept as a concession, but to demonstrate as a proved fact, that it is, and ever was, wholly false and groundless.

The grave allegation to which we refer, rests exclusively on the authority of the Melbourne Cabinet. It is contradicted or rendered incredible by the following important articles of evidence:

1. It is contradicted by the express declaration of Sir Robert Peel, that he never contemplated any sweeping change in the female part of the household, or any other control over it, than such as might relieve him from the embarrassment and humiliation of retaining about the Queen the immediate connexions of the ex-ministers. Sir R. Peel's declaration of his intention in this respect, is confirmed by the concurrence of every one of his political friends to whom it was communicated.

2. It is contradicted by the whole probabilities of the case. It is most unlikely that any minister, in the infancy of his power, and even while it was scarcely in embryo, would run counter to his sovereign's wishes, by making a demand so sweeping, so unusual, and so unnecessary. It is impossible, indeed, that her Majesty could ever have entertained an impression of that nature, unless she had been induced to adopt it, both by the strongest present persuasions and the grossest previous calumnies against the Conservative leaders on the part of those about her,

3. It is contradicted by the whole conduct of the parties. A demand by Sir R. Peel of the nature alleged, would have been harsh and extreme, according to any view of the question. According to the Whig view, according to the tone of all their organs and dependents, it would have been insulting and despotic. If such an insulting and despotic demand had been made, what would have been, what perhaps ought to have been, the answer? "The proposition thus insisted in is so unwarrantable and unbecoming, as to make it impossible for her Majesty to hold further communication with the individual who made it." But this is not done. The proposition, whatever it was, was so far entertained as to become the subject of consultation and deliberation with the Cabinet; and an answer was returned by the Queen, upon advice given to her, not breaking off the negotiation, but merely adhering to her own view, and leaving Sir Robert Peel to proceed with the task committed to him, if he chose to do so, under the restraint so imposed.

Further, if Sir Robert Peel had made an excessive demand, but was still to be intrusted with the formation of a ministry, the proper answer to be returned to him was, not an absolute refusal of all that he was supposed to have asked, but a refusal only of that part of it which was inadmissible, and a concession of the remainder. It should have been said:" You have asked the dismissal of the whole household; that is unreasonable, and will not be granted. But, if you are to be minister, you are entitled to the removal of the late ministers' near relatives; that is reasonable, and you shall have it." This was not done; and therefore it must be held that no part even of Sir Robert Peel's alleged demand, or supposed demand, was deemed admissible. The objection was not to the extent of the demand, but to any demand whatever that touched the female part of the household, even in its most obviously objectionable parts.

But, finally, the question of fact now at issue, is set at rest by the written evidence on the subject. On the one hand, the letter of the Queen, though worded by her advisers in vague and somewhat general terms, is a complete proof that Sir Robert Peel's proposal was not understood to go beyond the ladies of the bedchamber. On the other hand, the letter of Sir Robert

Peel to the Queen, on resigning his commission, professes to contain a precise account of the negotiations that had passed, and the points on which the treaty had been broken off. It places the matter of the household appointments on this explicit footing that, while Sir Robert Peel required merely the removal of SOME of the ladies, the Queen was advised to retain them ALL. Nothing can be more clear than this explanation of the point of difference given in that letter-nothing was more important than this part of the statement as affecting the relative position of the parties. Nothing could more imperatively call for contradiction if it was untrue-nothing could be more conclusive if it remained uncontradicted. It is one of the plainest principles of evidence, that with reference to oral communications, to which there are no witnesses, the record of what has passed, stated in correspondence by one party, and uncontroverted by the other, must be held as, in all material points, fixing the facts. It is needless to add, that even if there had been a previous misapprehension, this statement by Sir Robert Peel must be held to have cleared it up, and to have placed the question on its true basis.

According, then, both to the real and the written evidence on the subject, the question in dispute was, whether, in respect to a household consisting partly of the nominees and near relatives of the retiring ministry, it was right and reasonable in Sir Robert Peel to expect that, when he was called to the administration, SOME of the ladies in office should be removed; and whether he was justified in declining to proceed further in his task when the Queen was advised to declare that she would not part with ANY ONE OF THEM. When the question is thus fairly stated, its merits are so self-evident, that it would be an insult to common sense to discuss it further. The conduct of Sir Robert Peel was that which every honourable, wise, and prudent man would have adopted in the same circumstances. It is so perfectly and palpably right, and the contrary would have been so manifestly wrong, that we think he would be scarcely entitled to any praise for what he did, if in these days the simple and straightforward discharge of a plain duty in public life did not deserve culogium from its very rarity.

What else, indeed, should Sir Robert

Peel have done? The Radicals have suggested one course, and the Whigs another. A leading organ of the independent Radical party has hinted that he should have postponed his demand as to the household until he had secured a large majority in the House of Commons. Lord John Russell has said, that whatever embarrassment the denial of his proposition might occasion to Sir Robert Peel's government, he ought to have submitted to that evil, and have trusted to the ultimate generosity of the Queen.

Tory truth and principle are as different things as possible from either Radical trickery or Whig truckling. Whatever Sir Robert Peel was at any time to demand on this point, he was bound to demand at first: whatever he had a right to expect from the Queen's justice in support of her new administration, he was not entitled to leave to her generosity. He deserves, therefore, and he will receive from all upright, independent, and intelligent men, the approbation that is due to one who has honestly adhered to a public duty, where other men would have betrayed it: who has maintained the interests of the empire, and the honour of himself and his party, at the sacrifice of immediate power, and at the hazard of even offending his Sovereign. By no one, however, we believe, will his conduct be so fully appreciated as by that Sovereign herself, when a little time and reflection shall have broken the spell that evil influences have, for a while, cast around her.

II. The same case that fully vindicates Sir Robert Peel, contains the heavy condemnation of the Melbourne Cabinet. Let us only point out some special considerations that affect the proceedings which it has adopted.

1. After declaring itself defunct, and professing to make way for the appointment of a new ministry on whom the government of the country was to devolve in a peculiar and difficult crisis, the Melbourne Cabinet interposed an insurmountable obstacle to the very arrangements which they had rendered necessary, by advising her Majesty to insist in an unreasonable demand, and to retain about her person individuals whose continuance in office was incompatible with either the reality or the appearance of that confidence, without which no minister ought to receive or to accept of office. 2. The Melbourne Ministers stand

in the peculiarly delicate and novel situation of having tendered an advice to the Crown to this effect, that while they were themselves to retire, their own wives and sisters were to retain place and pay, and were to continue as channels of intrigue, calculated from the beginning to embarrass, and in the end to supplant, the administration to which, in the mean-time, they were forced to give way.

3. The leaders of the Melbourne party have been guilty of no ordinary culpability in endeavouring to fasten upon Sir Robert Peel a charge of usurpation and injustice, which they have now indeed been forced to acknowledge as groundless, but of which the true nature was as apparent after the receipt of Sir Robert Peel's letter to the Queen, as after the explanation which he gave in Parliament. The Duke of Wellington has well said that they ought at the first to have ascertained the facts as to which they were to advise before they gave their advice. It was plainly, indeed, their duty to the Queen and the country to see in writing what Sir Robert Peel's demand truly was, before they recommended its rejection. At all events, the letter of Sir Robert Peel ought to have undeceived them, and to have prevented all the misrepresentation in which they afterwards chose to indulge. But as on the receipt of that letter they gave no sign of surprise, and advised no statement in answer, the presumption is, that from the very first they knew the precise state of the fact as there set forth.

The proceedings of the Hon. William Cowper are an apt illustration of the course which the Whigs have pursued. That gentleman, the nephew and private secretary of Lord Melbourne, having vacated his seat for Hertford by accepting the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, offered himself again to his constituents in an address dated on Monday the 13th May, containing the follow ing choice morsel of rhetorical artifice :

"Every dictate of feeling and honour, of loyalty and justice, impel me at all hazards to support our Queen in her noble resistance to the cruel attempt so unworthily made to wrest from her Majesty a prerogative hitherto unquestioned; and to usurp the power of dismissing, at the minister's will, those ladies of her court, whom,

from their sympathy and devotion, and from long acquaintance, her Majesty could look upon as friends."

On what grounds, we ask, was this violent attack made upon Sir Robert Peel, the party principally implicated in these proceedings? In the position in which Mr Cowper stood, we cannot suppose that he had not information from Lord Melbourne as to the facts; and either his information must have been false, or Mr Cowper must have known of Sir Robert Peel's letter of Friday, in which the same explanation of his views is given as that which he verbally submitted to Parliament. If Mr Cowper knew of that letter, his opinion of the transactions that passed could not afterwards be materially changed. But let us hear how he expresses himself, after he has heard in debate the same statements which he must have previously seen in writing, when he denounced the conduct of the Tory leader in the terms we have quoted. On Wednesday the 15th May he again addresses his constituents, informing them of the favourable progress of his canvass, and thus expresses himself as to the events of which he had previously spoken:

"The explanations which have taken place in Parliament since my first address, and which certainly remove ALL grounds for ascribing ANY BUT PROPER AND LOYAL MOTIVES to the leaders of the Tory party in their late negotiations, assure us of the re-establishment of the Whig Administration, whose career of sound and practical reform, if duly supported by the people of this country, will not suffer from this momentary interruption "!!! The logic of this precious paragraph is quite unique; it runs in substance thus:"The disclosures which have been made, and which prove that the leaders of the Tory party have been grossly calumniated, will have naturally prepared you for the official restoration of their calumniators, who are thus happily re-established on the strength of their own detected calumnies.' A consummation more consistent with reason or justice cannot well be conceived. We know not to what considerations of prudence or compulsion we owe this change of tone; but it affords a pretty satisfactory answer to the outcry of the Whig press. Most people, however, we believe, will be of opinion, that the baseness of the original attack is only